3 ms·

Agreed. I wouldn't be so skeptical about the effects[0] if it wasn't because those researchers weren't being paid by big government, while recommending new taxe

Agreed. I wouldn't be so skeptical about the effects[0] if it wasn't because those researchers weren't being paid by big government, while recommending new taxes[1]. [0] it seems unlikely that humans have no influence on the environment. It equally seems improbable that we can predict sea levels half a century from now with any accuracy. [1] before anybody puts words in my mouth, I reserve the same skepticsm for any other report coming out of the mouth of an institution which advocates it should have more funding...

profunctor 8y ago
[0] sounds like you're saying "my gut says its improbable that we can detect sea level rise 50 years ahead". Why does it seem that way? These scientists are using evidence for these estimates so they are not pulled out of the air. [1] Are you going to remain skeptical without looking into it, seems more like you're dismissive rather than skeptical but maybe I am reading this wrong.? How could any researcher ever make the claim that something is a big issue and needs to be investigated further and fixed without triggering this skeptical reflex?
- beat 8y ago
  They're repeating the quasi-conspiracy theory that the reason climate scientists raise the issue of climate change is greed - they want more research money, so they can make more fake research, so they can get more money, because science is such a lucrative profession... sigh. There's nothing more prestigious in science than being the one who proves the conventional wisdom of the scientific community is wrong. That's how you get your name in the history books. But this is lost on those who think of everything in terms of money.
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    "They" never look at the reverse situation though. The money to be made from government grants into scientific research pales in comparison to the profits made by the fossil fuel industry. An industry that a lot of the worlds most powerful people, corporations, and countries are heavily invested in.
manfredo 8y ago
Re: "it seems unlikely that humans have no influence on the environment. It equally seems improbable that we can predict sea levels half a century from now with any accuracy" Shouldn't there be evidence about how past climate predictions fared? Climate change has been a hot topic (pun somewhat intended) for decades. Since Carter's presidency at least. There should have been at least a few environmental predictions that we can verify in retrospect.

profunctor 8y ago

[0] sounds like you're saying "my gut says its improbable that we can detect sea level rise 50 years ahead". Why does it seem that way? These scientists are using evidence for these estimates so they are not pulled out of the air. [1] Are you going to remain skeptical without looking into it, seems more like you're dismissive rather than skeptical but maybe I am reading this wrong.? How could any researcher ever make the claim that something is a big issue and needs to be investigated further and fixed without triggering this skeptical reflex?

beat 8y ago
They're repeating the quasi-conspiracy theory that the reason climate scientists raise the issue of climate change is greed - they want more research money, so they can make more fake research, so they can get more money, because science is such a lucrative profession... sigh. There's nothing more prestigious in science than being the one who proves the conventional wisdom of the scientific community is wrong. That's how you get your name in the history books. But this is lost on those who think of everything in terms of money.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  "They" never look at the reverse situation though. The money to be made from government grants into scientific research pales in comparison to the profits made by the fossil fuel industry. An industry that a lot of the worlds most powerful people, corporations, and countries are heavily invested in.

manfredo 8y ago

Re: "it seems unlikely that humans have no influence on the environment. It equally seems improbable that we can predict sea levels half a century from now with any accuracy" Shouldn't there be evidence about how past climate predictions fared? Climate change has been a hot topic (pun somewhat intended) for decades. Since Carter's presidency at least. There should have been at least a few environmental predictions that we can verify in retrospect.